JVel17

You are correct. Sorry.

Arte looking into potentially selling the team: ESPN: Los Angeles Angels owner Arte Moreno exploring possible sale of team. https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/34447735/los-angeles-angels-owner-arte-moreno-exploring-possible-sale-team

Exactly. It didn't take much $ for the small market TB Rays to have a great minor league operation and win 90+ games 5 out of 6 years from 2008-2013. Then in 2014, the Dodgers hired the Rays' Andrew Friedman to run baseball operations. What did the Dodgers want Mr. Friedman to do? To build the Dodgers baseball operation from the ground up to be like the small market Rays. The only difference between TB Rays and Dodgers under Friedman is the Dodgers have much more $ to throw at free agents. What would the Rays back then have been like with the Dodgers $ resources for FAs? Well, they would be like the new Dodgers. The BA article is basically describing what a well run organization looks like from the ground up (like the Rays 10-15 years ago and Dodgers now) that any of the MLB clubs can do and does not require the Dodgers buttwad of cash to accomplish. The Angels under Arte have significantly more $ resources than a small market team such as the Rays. This is why this is not a matter of Arte's financial resources, but rather a matter of Arte's priorities. Huge FA contracts like Arte has given out repeatedly dwarfs the $ spent by small market teams to have what the BA article describes. The Dodgers "secret formula" is basically to build the organization from the ground up like a small market team, which would help them have the high quantity/quality of young talent like small market teams have (to play or trade), but with the additional $ to be able to spend on high price FA when needed (unlike small market teams). Arte has shown a penchant for spending big bucks on FA (like the Dodgers/Yankees), but not spending the little bucks on building a healthy baseball organization like some of the smart small market teams do (Rays) and also some large market teams do (Dodgers).

It is a matter of priority. The Angels have more financial wherewithal than Oakland, TB, Seattle, etc. These teams have better organization depth than Arte's Angels year after year. In the context of organizational structure and priorities as defined by the BA article, the Angels should be able to do at least as well as these, but with even more financial resources to add selective high price free agent signings. Arte having less money than the Dodgers is a excuse/copout. He has the financial ability (and revenue from his TV deal) to do a lot more than he is doing as relating to what is noted in the BA article that the Dodgers are doing. Arte is basically a carbon copy of how Gene Autry ran the team when he was owner.

I agree to the extent that the Dodgers have a buttwad of money. However, if you read the Baseball America article, there is a lot more the Dodgers are doing other than throwing their wad of money at free agents for the major league roster. It has to do with creating a foundation for your whole baseball organization that later churns out more highly regarded young players year after year than most other organizations. This is separate from throwing money at free agents for your Major League roster. Also, doesn't Arte also have a buttwad of money? Arte is afterall a multibillionaire and the Angels have a TV deal that creates a LOT of revenue. Basically, it would be like running your organization from the bottom up in a similar fashion to the Oakland A's and Tampa Bay Rays, except with the additional buttwad of money that would allow the team to consistently go after high priced free agents (that Oakland and TB don't have the financial wherewithal like the Dodgers and Angels). This should be a luxury the Dodgers AND Angels have, not just the Dodgers. Also, correction, under Steinbrenner I do not believe the Yankees had the bottom up organizational strength that the Dodgers routinely have every year now. The Yankees were good with their minor league system (I remember we got JT Snow in a trade with the Yankees back in the day), but the Dodgers have taken it to another level. If the priority was there on the baseball side, I don't see why Arte can't do the same. It is not like Arte is a poor baseball owner in some small town.

What the article mentions is a winning formula for bottom up organizational excellence. Something in which the other teams ownership group had to put certain things in place to ultimately bear the fruit down the road (sustained winning). Is it wrong to mention such an article in light of the first sentence of the original post in this thread: "I don't believe the lack of organizational success is on Arte".

As a business owner in the business of major league professional baseball in which success would be measured by sustained (or at least consistent) success in general, and more specifically organizational health from the bottom up to nurture and grow your own relatively low cost talent (to promote to major league team or to trade to other teams in return for their experienced stars as an example), which would also withstand the inevitableness of player injuries, if this is the yardstick then Arte sucks as a MLB baseball business owner. However, as a business owner in the business of marketing/advertising, in which Arte has his shiny toys (Pujols, Hamilton, Trout, Ohtani, etc) to help bring in advertising revenue (including TV revenue), Arte is a great and successful marketing related business owner. Regardless of how many millions of dollars have been wasted on bad contracts in which Arte meddled into the baseball decisions and overruled decisions his GMs would make (in which Arte has every right to overrule his employees as he is the owner of the team), I am sure the Angel's balance sheet looks very healthy due to his great marketing oriented business decisions. I am sure Arte is worth more billions due to owning the Angels than if he didn't own the Angels. Unfortunately, Arte's marketing oriented decisions are not conducive to sustained success of the baseball team. At least Trout and Ohtani are what many would consider in their prime and Arte is wasting their best years. I don't believe Arte will do the following, but I am hoping, my fingers are tightly crossed, and am knocking on a bunch of wood... However, if it is a priority to keep Trout, win with Trout, AND bring the baseball side of the Angels organization back to health, the following may not be a bad thing to consider: 1) Trade Ohtani for 3-5 highly regarded top 100 prospects. Ohtani's trade value may never be higher than it is right now or this off season. Yes, Ohtani can still get better and become a better player, but he can also suffer a career ending injury. There is nobody else (other than trading Trout) that could bring in such a haul of young talent. Also, Trout has a no trade clause. So, this seems an option that should be highly considered. 2) Double, triple, or quadruple the budget for scouting and player development and start hiring scouts now (even if they have to lure them out of retirement or poach from other teams) 3) For 22/23 season, as to not waste Trout's talents, sign some high price free agents in the short term while exceeding the cap (in which Arte will need to pay the penalty). This will allow a potential of competing in the short term and maybe get to the playoff where who knows what could happen... While also biting the financial bullet in the short term while the organization becomes healthier. So, in short, selectively throw money at the right baseball players to help you win (not just for the purpose of advertising like Arte did with Pujols. 4) Basically follow the Dodgers playbook of how to win in the short term and build for organization health/depth for the long term (and do both concurrently). If the Dodgers can do it, and Arte is a multi-billionaire, why can't Arte spend the money in the short term on every aspect of the baseball side of the organization to make things better in the short AND long term? Also, wouldn't Arte make more money in the long term too if the Angels had such a "model organization"? Also, wouldn't this get the attention of the best free agents if they knew the Angels owner was as serious about sustained baseball excellence as he is about revenue from his marketing ventures, that basically Arte was as serious about sustained winning as the Dodgers organization? Is it wrong of me as an Angels fan to wish for such things? Or, am I hoping for a miracle that is unattainable?

Exactly. As a loyal Angels fan, this should be of concern and Angels fans can call a spade a spade.

Watson went back to Royals. Not sure if he was replaced. I believe Minasian is a good baseball guy, but with a lot of current limitations on how to make the Angels better organizationally. Trading for the catching prospect was good news (on a micro level). So, there is some good news here and there looking at specific things. However, as relating to this thread, the organization needs changing on a macro level which could take 3-5 years to see the fruit of such changes even if Arte fixed all these issues today (which he has not).

The premise of this whole thread is whether the "lack of organizational success is on Arte". The original poster said he did not believe so. My post shows why it is completely "on Arte". This is why I provided the Baseball America article link at the end of my novel (as it better defines "organizational" success).

tdawg87, this is my sentiment exactly.... and, like you, am stuck being an Angels fan

Funny guy. Nope, long time Angels fan. Just trying to shed light on Arte being the weak link by contrasting that with the operations of another successful team. Just placing the blame where the blame is due.

I am an Angels fan since the late 70's and am disgusted by the direction of the team under Arte Moreno. Some reasons for this disgust that will compare the Angels "organization" to the Dodgers (not just the Major League team, but the organization from bottom up): The Dodgers have built an empire starting with great combination of analytics/scouting, player development, player nutrition, building a foundation of success prior to ever putting on the major league uniform. That creates a never ending pipeline of good players to bring up to put on the Dodger uniform or to trade for other stars. I would be curious to know what emphasis Arte puts on strengthening the Angels organization (from the bottom up) from a baseball vantage point and not from a marketing vantage point. The Dodgers have multiple "Presidents", including a President in charge of "baseball" operations (Andrew Friedman). Who is the Angel's counterpart? I do not know of much evidence Arte prioritizes the non-major league baseball operation like the Dodgers do. There is much evidence however of Arte wanting big names to secure more TV broadcast revenue (Pujols, Hamilton, etc). He spends big money for the big names to keep the Angels in the headlines (Trout, signing Rendon, etc). These are great business decisions for marketing. However, having a few stars on the major league roster for marketing purposes doesn't sufficiently address anything else that would make the Angels baseball "organization" strong from the bottom up. Gene Autry, bless his soul, also previously was a similar kind of Angels owner. This focus changed under Disney when they hired Bill Stoneman and then Stoneman hired Mike Scioscia in which baseball operations became a higher priority. The Angels won their only World Series championship after Autry and before Arte (under the Disney ownership). Disney was a big corporation that knew nothing about baseball, so they hired baseball people to run the baseball team while Disney focused on the marketing. Arte's first handful of years when the Angels were making the playoff consistently could arguably be due to riding the coattails of the prior administration under Disney/Stoneman. But this later went downhill as Arte did not do what the Dodgers did when their new ownership group saved the Dodgers from Frank McCourt and then lured Andrew Friedman from Tampa Bay to run the Dodgers baseball operations. However, when the new Dodgers ownership group took over, the Dodgers high MLB payroll and free agent signings seemed similar to what Arte was trying to do, but behind the scenes, out of the camera's eye, the Dodgers were concurrently building the foundation of a "baseball" organization that has been bearing fruit for the last 5+ years. The Dodgers began building a powerhouse of an organization (prioritizing baseball first, then marketing), unlike the "marketing" organization that Arte has built. This year, the Dodgers have multiple injuries, but still chug along due to their smooth oiled organizational machine. The Angels have likewise had multiple injuries, but don't have the organizational depth that the Dodgers have. This is squarely due to Arte Moreno and nobody else. Organizational baseball depth provides various options in building a team, trades at trade deadline or offseason, etc. The Dodgers can fill holes with high quality young players or trade some of their young players to other teams for their stars. The Angels lack such flexibility due to their lack of organizational baseball depth. This is the result of many years of lack of prioritizing baseball ahead of marketing (this falls squarely on Arte's shoulders and nobody else). What I wrote here is "in addition to" what others have already mentioned (Arte being a meddling owner when it comes to MLB baseball decisions that relate to FA signings, trades, etc). Arte is a marketer. This is how Arte obtained his billions prior to becoming the Angels owner. Arte is at least consistent in this regard. Arte was a marketer before becoming the Angels owner and he has remained a marketer after becoming the Angels owner. Although there has been times Arte has hired people that would arguably be considered quality baseball people (Eddie Bane for scouting, and some of their G/Ms that had arguably good ideas when hired), Arte has never fully given them control of the baseball operations due to his meddling in baseball decisions and not fully funding organizational baseball development like the Dodgers and some other teams have done. Although I believe Arte would love for the Angels to win, including winning a world series, I do not believe it can be debated that Arte has always more highly prioritized the marketing side of the Angels higher than every other aspect of organizational development. It is my opinion that until Arte gives full reign of the baseball operations (and full funding to fund it) to a "baseball" person rather than marketing person, or sells the team, then the Angels will remain in mediocrity (maybe occasionally have a winning season if MLB players stay relatively healthy and everything else goes well that season). Sort of like a repeat of the years Gene Autry owned the Angels. Here is an interesting read from Baseball America (which says the Dodgers are the "Model Organization" due to their full attention and funding to all aspects of the baseball side of the organization): https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/theyre-the-model-how-the-dodgers-player-development-machine-rolls-on/ If you got this far, thank you for reading this novel...